|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
- 1 Fyi
- 2 Rebel Media
- 3 Warren National University
- 4 Question on draft deletion
- 5 streamline Murdock trust donations
- 6 Automated sanctimony
- 7 AN3
- 8 Rollback granted
- 9 GNG
- 10 == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 11 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 12 A bit of a happy casual topic
- 13 Vox article
- 14 Rebecca Masisak and Daniel Ben-Horin
- 15 Please explain why my edit to TALK is unconstructive
- 16 Comey dismissal
- 17 Trump timeline RfCs
- 18 Gamergate
- 19 Leftist ideologues
- 20 Editing
- 21 Non-neutral?
Requesting immediate archiving...
Requesting immediate archiving...
Could you please specify why you said I was on "thin ice on the conduct front" on this page? As I demonstrated on the talk page there, I did not in fact add unsourced content, so I don't know why you first (1) opened a new section on that talk page claiming that I did, and (2) responded to my (somewhat lengthy) demonstration that I did not with "You're on thin ice on the conduct front, but let's focus on content please." Does WP:AGF not come naturally to you in this case, for some reason? Newimpartial (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Here are four edits in which you edit warred to add the same material over and over again saying that Robinson is a convicted criminal, each time without providing a source to support the claim: , , , . --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Those are literally the same four edits that I provided in the discussion on the talk page. The last of those four, in your sequence, was a response to a deletion of the whole section including the sources provided (Telegraph), and I reverted to the version that had been in place for more than three weeks. There was certainly no request in the edit I reverted for sourcing on criminality. The first was a restoration of HungarianPhrasebook's sourced material, again, where the passage dropped was significantly broader and the edit history didn't even raise any questions related to Mr. Robinson or BLP issues. The second one you mention was not me "adding material" at all, but re-phrasing the material added by HungarianPhrasebook to improve NPOV, and this was close to the wording which became stable for the next three weeks. So it should be very clear that I have not "added the same material over and over again" - I have three times over the last month restored previous versions of the text, and once rephrased the text in a more moderate encyclopedic voice. So, how about you rethink your "thin ice" stance? Newimpartial (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't care what you were responding to, or what your thought process was. In all four instances you re-added the same BLP content without a source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- In one of them I re-worded without "adding BLP content" at all; in two of the others I restored sourced claims -- with sources fully present -- and no attention was drawn in the previous discussion to the question of the label "criminal" by any of those who deleted the sourced claims that I was restoring. All it would have taken would have been a little  label, and I (or anyone else) could have sourced the criminality from the article on Robinson. Would you please stop saying that I "re-added the same BLP content without a source" when that is manifestly not what I did in three of the four edits (over the course of a month) which we are discussing. Newimpartial (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not an admin and I'm not going to report you, so you have nothing to worry about. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Warren National University
Before you revert the edits on this article understand a few things. First, the term "Diploma Mill" is subjective and can be considered offensive. There is most certainly a difference between a diploma mill and an unaccredited University. Second, biased information most certainly DOES NOT belong in the opening statement.
If you have a problem with this, then I suggest taking it to a third party such as the mediation cabal.
- Thanks for the note. This is really a discussion for Talk:Warren National University. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Question on draft deletion
- WP:UP#Deleting your user page or subpages --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
streamline Murdock trust donations
I'm curious as to your edit to "streamline Murdock trust donations" in the ADF article. It seems to me that the name of the trust is the most important piece of information (they gave the money, not Murdock himself). If any streamlining was necessary (and I don't think it was) I would think you'd take out who founded the trust. This would place the sentence more in line with the previous part of the section. Bcostley (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for writing. A trust is just a legal technicality. Murdock could have called his trust the Wild and Crazy Trust and it wouldn't have made a difference from an encyclopedic standpoint. The noteworthiness of this information is that it was Murdock's trust. If you wish to continue this conversation I suggest we do so at Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom so that others get a chance to participate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It accurately reflects the importance I attach to your sanctimony. Best wishes. --13:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)~
- You could have used the time you spent personalizing this "warning" instead adding a comment at Talk:James O'Keefe to try to resolve your edit war with LibertyChick1776. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
There's an AN3 discussion opened up re the Oath Keepers
fiascoarticle in which I've mentioned your edits; nothing pejorative, but I think I mighta screwed up the ping on it. Take a look, you get a chance. Anmccaff (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi DrFleischman. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also, make sure you warn users making test/vandalism edits. Malinaccier (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Neutrality, I'm hoping for your opinion on rollback in light of the fact that we edit in spaces that overlap so much. There's an awful lot of disruption (blatant and unexplained removal of source content, addition of unsourced POV content, etc.) that is unambiguously disruptive but that I don't think I'd describe as clear vandalism and that might be done in good faith (by editors who are very misinformed about our policies). Do you think rollback is appropriate for these sorts of editing behaviors? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the very good question. You identify the exact gray area that does comes up a lot: edits that are not "blatant vandalism" in the traditional sense (i.e., replacing words with gibberish, schoolyard disparagement) but are unambiguously disruptive (e.g., unexplained removals of sourced content). I would usually manually undo edits like this, at least the first time, with a brief explanation in the edit summary ("unsourced" etc.) and probably a user talk-page note; but if the edits continue to occur without explanation, then I would say rollback would be appropriate. Others may differ, but that's my general sense. I think it depends on context. Neutralitytalk 21:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hm, borderline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not to me, but the coverage by news sources is pretty minimal. I didn't bother to check Google Books. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- It appears to be relatively new - Alexa isn't overly excited about it. Coverage appears so-so. I expect opposition news sources will avoid coverage as it's competition. Levin has a radio show so it appears to me that this is a promotion for the launch of his tv show, whatever that may be - it's not MSM to my knowledge. While Levin passes GNG, there is no inherent notability, so I think this page would be better served as a merge to his BLP. I don't see it being a stand alone. Atsme📞📧 22:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC) ==
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
A bit of a happy casual topic
There is an editor at the Vox (website) talk page that is attacking my intentions personally for raising an issue. He is also making claims about The Hill not being a RS or that the article cannot be used due to WP:Synthesis because the main subject is on another topic, even if an explicit claim about Vox is made. I don't know too much about WP:Synthesis but that appears to not be the point of it. Since you seem to be a reasonable editor who is more experienced on WP, could you perhaps take a look at the page? Thank you very much. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm not inclined to weigh in, but I'm willing to give you some advice. These sorts of personal attacks are unfortunate but they happen all the time. Personally I try to ignore them. If it becomes too much of a distraction you can discuss their conduct on their user talk; that way you can focus on content on article talk. My other piece of advice is that if you've discussed a matter and you don't think the discussion is getting anywhere, don't slam your head against a wall trying to convince an stubborn contributor. It rarely works. Instead, move on to dispute resolution. I applaud you trying to recruit editors such as myself but you'd be well advised to read our canvassing guideline first. In this situation you might consider asking Neutrality to weigh in since they've already participated on that talk page. I've found them to be eminently reasonable--and they also happen to be an admin, which can be helpful when dealing with conduct issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Rebecca Masisak and Daniel Ben-Horin
Hi there, DrFleishhman. I've been looking in some detail at your recent edits on these. In the light of the discussion on Women in Red, I think you might like to reconsider your position. I'm sure the new content was added in good faith. We should make sure we do not lose a competent new editor.--Ipigott (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Ipigott. Thanks for the message, but I don't understand. What position of mine are you referring to, and who is the competent new editor you're referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I found the relevant discussion and responded. Thanks for the note. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi DrFleischman! I've been briefly involved in the discussion on the Women in Red talk page, so I'm curious about the COI investigation. My question is broad: I'm not concerned about that particular editor, what I want to understand is how you can tell if someone is a paid editor or has a COI. Is there a pattern to look for? Is it something that involves IP addresses? Feel free to email me or ping me here. Looking through your responses on your talk page, you seem like you'd be good at explaining this kind of topic to me in a way that I'll understand. :) Thanks in advance. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose there are different ways to determine whether there's a COI, but in this case it can be determined by doing a google search with the username, and then conducting some cursory follow-up research. The only reason I thought to conduct such an "investigation" is because various TechSoup employees and consultants have been editing these pages semi-regularly for years. Alicjapeas is one of at least four. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Please explain why my edit to TALK is unconstructive
I gave examples of how the Breitbart News article was being treated differnetly than MSNBC, which shows the liberal POV the article has. Even now, they are debating the fake photo stating that some of the same sources the POV Powers to Be used in their "justification" of calling it a far right News source, as being suspect in their attribution of that designation. Also, just because a FAR LEFT WING ANTI FREE SPEECH organization can get organizations who are afraid of boycotts to drop a feed, does not mean that their assertions are true, which is part of the article. The whole article is has a POV that is tightly guarded, just like you do not want anyone to see so you edit out those who debate it. Shame!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- You get me wrong. I'm happy to debate it. It's just that your comment seemed like a rant about media organizations rather than about anything actionable in the article. Do you want the word "far right" changed or removed? Then say that explicitly. I'd suggest that you review our core policies and guidelines first, or your suggestion will likely be quickly shot down. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Who says "Far Right"? The liberal sources about Breitbart news or Breitbart News itself? I have seen that they state the obvious fact they are conservative, but they never claimed to be far right. Bannon stated it was a outlet that allowed one "Alt-right" faction (certainly not the faction that is white nationalist, as the members of their editorial and writing staff certainly proves! Gay, Jewish, Asian, Black, Hispanic and White members.)
- Again, the article shows the Left wing bias when the same standard is NOT placed on MSNBC being a far left network.
- BTW, not sure why my sig is not working AGAIN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Edit question. Why does the preference about the signature uncheck every once in a while so that even when the tildes are put in edit summary it states it was unsigned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- If you review our verifiability policy, you'll see that the way the subject of an article describes itself isn't particularly relevant to how we describe it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Don't put the signatures in the edit summary. Put them at the end of your comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
So,even if the varifiable source is biased politically against the subject, that is all that matters? Truth doesn't? These articles are tightly guarded by liberal editors. That does not bode well for truth. When Talk sections are not even a place to be able to discuss articles, it makes the case of those who say that Wikipedia is not a good source for unbiased information.Hmmreally 17:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)
- What makes you say that talk pages aren't even a place to be able to discuss articles? What I'm saying is exactly the opposite: talk pages are the very place to discuss articles. And why do you think you know the political persuasions of your fellow editors? Regarding your comment about biased sources, please read WP:BIASED. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- These articles are tightly guarded by liberal editors. That does not bode well for truth. Reality has a well known liberal bias. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I have replied to your !vote at Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Also, WP:RFC says it's fine to sign the RFC question with five tildes instead of four. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Your statement that I did not sign the RFC question was false. I signed using five tildes, as specifically allowed by WP:RFC: "Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name and date) or ~~~~~ (just the date)." Since you apparently prefer that I sign with four tildes, I have now done so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- You're banned from my user talk for 30 days. Once 30 days have elapsed the ban will automatically expire. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I went back and reviewed some of our past interactions. My goodness. Please stop degrading the experience of your fellow editors. If that means taking a good, long wikibreak, then sobeit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Trump timeline RfCs
Thanks for the notes about being too vague. I've not done RfCs before, so I wasn't sure how narrow the questions ought to be. I've restarted those RfC sections and replaced them with specific questions, per your advice. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care. You'll have to take it up with the admins if you're going to press the issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Why is it that a plurality, or even a majority of Wikipedia editors are extreme leftists, or even "alt-left"?
Are you participating in a massive confirmation bias exercise? Or do you just believe its appropriate to label a Jewish reporter as a white supremacist for deeper moralistic reasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SgThomas (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Why is it that you think it's appropriate to personalize the debate by pegging fellow contributors as having a particular ideologies? Is it helpful? Is it constructive? Does it bring us any closer to achieving consensus? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm currently looking for editors to participate in this world contest in November Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest. To make it work we really badly need people from as many countries as possible. Countries like Poland don't get that many women editors on here! Are you certain that this editor complaining has COI? It's a pity if there is as she's exactly the sort of person I want to participate from countries like that to produce articles for the contest! The problem with it is that whatever she declared you wouldn't believe it and would decline it so the articleare effectively barricaded from being improved which I don't think is right. I and some of my veteran friends on here can take a look at the articles and re edit them neutrally to what we want if it'll stop these people from trying to edit Wikipedia. There looks to be some decent content in there and knowledge is knowledge, these people don't own their subjects of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have a few responses:
- Yes, I am 100% certain that Alicjapeas has a COI. It's easy to confirm, and is further corroborated by the fact that TechSoup has a clear history of paying employees and/or consultants to edit related articles.
- Of the two articles Alicjapeas has contributed to, one was an existing article about a woman ("Women in Blue?") and the other was about man. Neither were Women in Red, and it doesn't seem likely Alicjapeas is seriously interested in contributing to WIR. That said, I have no issue with her contributing to WIR, as long as it's outside of her COI area(s).
- I am in no way barricading any articles from being improved, and I don't appreciate the unfounded accusation. I've never tried to prevent non-COI editors from making improvements to those pages.
- If you like Alicjapeas' edits then you're welcome to promote them yourself. I'd encourage you to disclose that they were originally proposed by a COI editor and to give folks (including myself) an opportunity to weigh in on the appropriate talk pages.
- Regarding your reference to "you and some of your veteran friends on here," I hope you're not planning to engage in any improper canvassing. Again, I'm happy to work with you to improve these pages. (And I hope I can be your friend too. ) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate your response, us Doctors have to stick together right LOL? ;-) Sorry, I didn't mean to accuse you of barricading content and I fully understand the reasons behind it, you see it as protecting the site. Certainly not interested in canvassing people, my point was more that if neutral long standing editors took control of them and ensure that they're of the standard we would want and fully within content guidelines then that might be a more effective way of dealing with people tampering and then you would have multiple people protecting them rather than taking the easy option. I don't think notability or OR is an issue looking at the sourcing so I think something could be done between us in which we both agree is acceptable. I hope I'm not wrong about this editor Dr Fleischman, as Wikipedia badly needs people from non anglo countries who can write about women! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. We're going to have to address the issues piecemeal on the article talk page. In my analysis much of the content added by Alicja was unsourced, poorly sourced, original research, and/or promotional in tone. There was an AfD on Masisak that was closed as keep so I won't contest her notability. Ben-Horin was blarred with a talk page comment about notability so that should probably be addressed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mr Dr, I've hopefully sorted out that Masisak article, it did use good sources and had some fine content but some cruft and some irrelevant quotes and things which I've cut out (which I say without wanting to upset Alicja as she writes well overall). It should look acceptable now , though I'm only a newbie myself of course so what would I know?. ;-). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- If you're a newbie then I don't know how to even describe what I am! Straight out of the womb? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps! The article definitely looks much better overall and you're good at condensing to the most relevant points. I agree with a lot of your edits but I still don't think it would be that harmful to have a bit more padding.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd love it if the article were fuller, but I don't believe in padding it with non-noteworthy or inappropriately sourced content. So it goes for subjects of borderline notability. Many of these will never be more than stubs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, though I think there's a narrow line between padding and comprehension at times. The other article is in my sandbox User:Dr. Blofeld/Sandbox 2. I've only removed a small amount and updated the dates so far but I think it's best you cut out and alter what you think is appropriate there and we'll update it together rather than wasting my time doing the cutting and you drastically cutting it in the main space. Try at least to retain one fact or two though. :-) The background info seems to be from his own article in the NYT but given the credibility of the paper I think it's acceptable as long as the overall article has the right balance of sources. Some of the "appearances" look dubious, I've removed a few, descriptions in independent books I think have more validity though, though there seems to be some unnecessary quotes in parts. Anyway, all yours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ok. Please give me a day or two. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I started working on it, but as I was cutting out the non-noteworthy material (supported only by primary sources) I decided the guy isn't notable. If I were to keep cutting, we'd end up with only a few sentences, and I agree with Lemongirl942 that WP:BLP1E applies to that. I added a talk page comment accordingly. If we're going to continue this conversation, can we please do so at Talk:Daniel Ben-Horin? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
How can it be non-neutral to quote Trump's exact words expressly stating that pursuant to his executive order, "there is no such thing as Obamacare anymore". He said what he said. bd2412 T 04:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the title of the article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- I am referring to this revert at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Specifically, how is this not a repeal effort if the President basically says that it is? At the very least, we should mention something about the Executive Order (and perhaps the elimination of funding), in that they reverses underpinning regulatory parts of Obamacare. bd2412 T 11:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Here at Wikipedia, neutrality generally means following the reliable sources. And last I checked Donald Trump was not a reliable source. I hope that answers your question. If not, we should probably continue the conversation at Talk:PPACA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)